Thanks.
A lot of thoughts/questions about this. But two initial takeaways.
About 25 years ago, I was thinking about the me-centered nature of mankind and theorized, certainly not uniquely, that we, at some point, had a decision to make. We could improve our existence externally (material goods to conceivably make life better) or we could seek to improve life by focusing on the internal (as an agnostic/atheist, this had some unknown context based on a belief that we had not maxed our potential, but also was the desire to improve ourselves, including what we think makes us happy). I concluded that at that fork, we essentially have chosen the former. Better life by way of external improvements. And, we have innovatively accomplished that to an incredible extent over the las century and more; however, I doubt we have improved our existence. We have a great deal of depression, anger, conflict, and, somehow, not enough time. The percentage of people who feel lost or without purpose today is, I suspect, as much or greater than 200 years ago.
Second, I watched a recently produced video just yesterday about climate change and personal consumption. It was about the uber wealthy and how they consume energy and create CO2 in exponentially greater ways than the average person. The first suggestion to fix “them” was to tax them and redistribute their wealth so that they were forced to consume less and/or motivated to do so from selfish cost perspectives. My wife’s immediate response was to say a redistribution of that wealth probably means the average consumption goes up, even if the mega-Rich’s consumption goes down. Net result for the environment? Not much. The motivation seemed to maximize climate change for socio-economic change.
Bottomline, we live me-centric lives. Which is only fine if there is no overarching meaning to existence that is not subjective, but is objective. If not, then why should the me today care about the tomorrow? If we lose energy or climate change results in the end of humanity, how is that a net gain or net loss to the planet, let alone the universe? This thread is about people viewing climate change as bad. But, is it really?